Abstract
This chapter considers the role of external pressures vis à vis administrative reforms. To what extent does the transnationalization of policy frames through expert knowledge and cross-national comparisons correspond to the processes of domestication? Is there a type of policy learning that is observable? This chapter analyses the guidance given by the OECD to Italy with regard to international standard setting and benchmarking, and the actions of the European Union through the European economic semester.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Regulatory policies were able to be diffused to a higher extent than policies involving redistributive conflicts between domestic actor coalitions (see Chap. 1).
- 2.
- 3.
Discussing modernization as a “tacit” concept, naturally (emphasis added) associated with improvement, that is, increased rationality and effectiveness of the whole society, Alasuutari (2011) argues that the diffusion of worldwide policy models is coupled with the framework of state competition and uses cross-national comparative data to justify reforms. However, this does not guarantee that transnational recipes are always put into practice: “the introduction of a transnational idea typically triggers a process in which actors defend their positions and interests in the changes that the potential reform causes to the existing status quo” (ivi: 231).
- 4.
According to the Treaty, the EU lacks any direct legislative competence on administrative policy. Article 298 TFEU calls for an “open, efficient and independent” administration, but for the European, not the national, level.
- 5.
The World Bank Governance Indicators (WBGI) are considered the most widely used indicators for measuring PA worldwide (http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/#home). Yet, as Van Dooren (2018) remarks observing the “government effectiveness” dimension for the year 2016, WBGI is more useful to describe big differences that can be found on a global scale, than for smaller distinctions within EU countries. Actually, also the project team specifies that the composite indicators are useful as a tool for “broad cross-country comparisons” and for evaluating “broad trends over time” (http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#doc). They themselves warn that specific governance reforms country contexts “need to be informed by much more detailed and country-specific diagnostic data” (ibidem).
- 6.
Comparative information can be downloaded from the OECD database (http://www.oecd.org/gov/government-at-a-glance-2017-database.htm).
- 7.
The main organizational and cognitive dimensions emerging from the research literature on wicked problems, and the implications for public administration are usefully discussed by Brian and Alford (2015).
- 8.
Future effort has been also announced in order to develop new indicators measuring the implementation of the 2014 OECD “Recommendation on Digital Government Strategies”.
- 9.
- 10.
Comparing the same “general public services” function from the structure of other Southern EU governments’ expenditures during the same years 2007–2015, Greece and France scored higher decreases (respectively −6.9 and −2.6); on the contrary, Spain and Portugal increased their quotas (respectively +2.2 and +1.5) (OECD 2017a: 76–77).
- 11.
On the basis of the 2016 OECD “Accruals Survey”, Italy did not appear among those countries implementing or transitioning to accrual accounting, but maintaining cash financial reports.
- 12.
The performance assessment index indicates the types of performance assessment tools and criteria, and the extent to which performance assessments are used in career advancement, remuneration and contract renewal. This index provides information on the formal use of performance assessments in central government, and does not provide information on its implementation or the quality of work performed by public servants. Data are based on expert surveys.
- 13.
- 14.
It was suitably pointed out that the reference to public administration was “changeable, sliding from the broader notion of ‘public services’ in 2012 to the narrower one of ‘administrative modernisation’ in 2015” (Peña-Casas et al. 2015).
- 15.
Welcome Letter 2014 by the Italian EU presidency (www.eupan.it).
- 16.
The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) is a tool to improve management performance inspired by total-quality models, but especially designed for public-sector organizations.
- 17.
The Guide on the “Quality of PA”, first published in 2015 (fully updated in 2017) by the newly established “European Commission Inter-service Group on Institutional Capacity and Administrative Reform”, was devoted to operationally support national administrations in delivering “successful” strategies through “inspirational” case studies, in order for them to “create prosperous, fair and resilient societies” and “become fit for the future” (European Commission 2017).
- 18.
Croatia joined the EU in 2013, after the European Semester started. In the Eurozone, Greece and Cyprus got financial assistance from EU economic adjustment programmes.
- 19.
Data from the Economic Governance Support Unit (EGOV) of the European Parliament (http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/econ/economic-governance.html).
- 20.
It deserves to be also kept in mind that in 2018 the fiscal adjustment for Italy was judged “inadequate”.
- 21.
Among non-Euro-area countries, Bulgaria, Czechia, Hungary and Poland were addressed too.
- 22.
Measuring member states’ performance per policy area, the EU Single Market Scoreboard (http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/scoreboard/index_en.htm) acknowledged as “unsatisfactory” Italy’s public procurement performance in 2017.
- 23.
Recommendations about PA also included, since the very beginning of the European Semester, the enforcement of civil justice, resulting in the length of proceedings amongst the highest in the EU. In 2018, it remained a priority (Council 2018), but the analysis of this specific topic is beyond the contents of this book.
- 24.
Trust in PA has been less documented than changes in political trust, and fewer indicators are available. Moreover, Raaphorst and Van de Walle (2018) deepen the subject distinguishing between two trust relationships: trust of citizens in the PA and trust of the PA in citizens. Anyhow, they found both dimensions very scarcely investigated by academic literature so far.
- 25.
The four top-level benchmarks cover the policy priorities of the EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016–2020 (https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en).
- 26.
The Italian PagoPA, a centralized node for public payments, was selected as a good practice on the top-level benchmark “key enablers” (ivi: 50).
- 27.
Funded by the European Commission and implemented by the consortium of the European Institute for Public Administration (EIPA), Hertie School for Governance, and Ramboll Management Consulting. EUPACK final results were presented in a closing participatory seminar in March 2018: useful documentation is available from https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=88&eventsId=1308&langId=en (last accessed February 2019).
- 28.
In 2014–2020, EU Cohesion policy funding invests in “institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public administration” under Thematic Objective 11 (TO11). As in the previous period 2007–2013, most of the resources comes from the European Social Fund (ESF). The novelty of the 2014–2020 programming period is that the use of funds has been conditioned on the elaboration of a policy strategic framework for administrative reform. Whether the introduction of this ex ante conditionality can really improve the use of EU funds for PA reforms has been critically discussed by Asatryan et al. (2016: 42). Updated information about “TO11” are available from https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/themes/11.
References
Alasuutari, P. (2011). Modernization as a Tacit Concept Used in Governance. Journal of Political Power, 4(2), 217–235.
Alcidi, C. & Gros, D. (2017). How to strengthen the European Semester? CEPS Research Report No. 2017/15.
Asatryan, Z., et al. (2016). Public Sector Reform: How the EU Budget Is Used to Encourage It. In Policy Department on Budgetary Affairs. Brussels: European Parliament.
Attström, K. (2018). Role and effect of external support to Public Administration. Brussels, European Commission, KE-03-18-295-EN-N.
Brian, W.H. & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711–739.
Council. (2011a). Council Recommendation of 12 July 2011 on the Implementation of the Broad Guidelines for the Economic Policies of the Member States Whose Currency Is the Euro. Official Journal of the European Union (2011/C 217/05).
Council. (2011b). Council Recommendation of 12 July 2011 on the National Reform Programme 2011 of Italy and Delivering a Council Opinion on the Updated Stability Programme of Italy, 2011–2014. Official Journal of the European Union (2011/C 215/02).
Council. (2012). Council Recommendation of 10 July 2012 on the National Reform Programme 2011 of Italy and Delivering a Council Opinion on the Updated Stability Programme of Italy, 2012–2015. Official Journal of the European Union (2012/C 219/14).
Council. (2013). Council Recommendation of 9 July 2013 on the National Reform Programme 2013 of Italy and Delivering a Council Opinion on the Updated Stability Programme of Italy, 2012–2017. Official Journal of the European Union (2013/C 217/11).
Council. (2017). Council Recommendation of 11 July 2017 on the 2017 National Reform Programme of Italy and Delivering a Council Opinion on the 2017 Stability Programme of Italy. Official Journal of the European Union (2017/C 261/11).
Council. (2018). Council Recommendation of 13 July 2018 on the 2018 National Reform Programme of Italy and Delivering a Council Opinion on the 2018 Stability Programme of Italy. Official Journal of the European Union (2018/C 320/11).
Demmke, C. (2017). The European Public Administration Network (EUPAN): Which Contribution to the Informal Civil Service Cooperation in the EU? Revue française d’administration publique, 161(1), 31–44.
Dolowitz, D. P., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making. Governance, 13(1), 5–24.
Dunlop, C. A. (2017). Policy Learning and Policy Failure: Definitions, Dimensions and Intersections. Policy & Politics, 45(1), 3–18.
Dunlop, C. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2013). Systematizing Policy Learning: From Monolith to Dimensions. Political Studies, 31(3), 599–619.
Dunlop, C. A., & Radaelli, C. M. (2018). Policy Learning and Organizational Capacity. In E. Ongaro & S. van Thiel (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe (pp. 595–620). London: Palgrave.
EIPA. (2015a, June 11–12). Report on the Evaluation of EUPAN. Executive Summary and Discussion Note. DG-Meeting in Riga. Luxembourg Presidency of the Council of the EU. Retrieved January, 2019, from http://www.eupan.eu/files/repository/20150609160808_Executive_summary_and_discussion_note_(Final_Version)_-_Evaluation_of_EUPAN_-_Luxembourg_-_2015.pdf.
EIPA. (2015b, June 11–12). Report on the Evaluation of EUPAN. Stakeholders Analysis. DG-Meeting in Riga. Luxembourg Presidency of the Council of the EU. Retrieved January, 2019, from http://www.eupan.eu/files/repository/20150609161056_Stakeholders_report_8_June_2015.pdf.
EUPAN. (2016, June 16–17). The First EUPAN Strategy Paper. DG-Meeting in Amsterdam. The Netherlands Presidency of the Council of the EU. Retrieved January, 2019, from https://www.eupan.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/EUPAN_2016_The_First_EUPAN_Strategy_Paper.pdf.
Eurobarometer. (2018). Standard Eurobarometer 88—Public Opinion in the EU. Retrieved February, 2019, from http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion.
European Commission. (2012). Assessment of the 2012 National Reform Programme and Stability Programme for Italy. Commission Staff Working Paper. COM(2012)318 Final, Brussels.
European Commission. (2013). Assessment of the 2013 National Reform Programme and Stability Programme for Italy. Commission Staff Working Paper. COM(2013)362 Final, Brussels.
European Commission. (2014a). Annual Growth Survey 2015. COM(2014) 902 Final, Brussels.
European Commission. (2014b). Assessment of the 2014 National Reform Programme and Stability Programme for Italy. Commission Staff Working Paper. COM(2014)413 Final, Brussels.
European Commission. (2014c). Reindustrialising Europe. Member States’ Competitiveness Report 2014. Commission Staff Working Paper. SWD(2014) 278, Brussels.
European Commission. (2015). Assessment of the 2015 National Reform Programme and Stability Programme for Italy. Commission Staff Working Paper. COM(2015)583 Final, Brussels.
European Commission. (2017). Quality of Public Administration. A Toolbox for Practitioners. Abridged Version. Retrieved January, 2018, from http://ec.europa.eu/esf/toolbox.
European Commission. (2018a). 2018 European Semester—Country-Specific Recommendations. COM(2018) 400 Final, Brussels.
European Commission. (2018b). Country Report Italy 2018 Including an In-Depth Review on the Prevention and Correction of Macroeconomic Imbalances. Commission Staff Working Paper, SWD(2018) 210 Final, Brussels.
European Commission. (2018c). eGovernment Benchmark 2018. Securing eGovernment for All. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU.
European Commission. (2018d). 3 Years Structural Reforms Support Service. Supporting Reforms that Enhance Growth and Job Creation Across the EU. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the EU.
European Commission. (2018e). Annual Monitoring Report on the Implementation of Structural Reform Support Programme 2017. Commission Staff Working Document. SWD(2018) 465 Final, Brussels.
Knill, C. (2005). Introduction: Cross-National Policy Convergence: Concepts, Approaches and Explanatory Factors. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 764–774.
OECD. (1997). Measuring Public Employment in OECD Countries: Sources, Methods and Results. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2013). Integrity Review of Italy. Reinforcing Public Sector Integrity, Restoring Trust for Sustainable Growth. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2017a). Government at a Glance 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2017b). Working with Change: Systems Approaches to Public Sector Challenges. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2017c). OECD Economic Surveys: Italy 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Peña-Casas, R., Sabato, S., Lisi, V., & Agostini, C. (2015). The European Semester and Modernisation of Public Administration. OSE Paper Series, Briefing Paper No. 12, European Social Observatory, Brussels.
Pollitt, C. & Bouckaert, G. (2017). Public Management Reform. A Comparative Analysis - Into The Age of Austerity, 4th Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Porter, T., & Webb, M. (2008). Role of the OECD in the Orchestration of Global Knowledge Networks. In R. Mahon & S. McBride (Eds.), The OECD and Transnational Governance (pp. 43–59). Vancouver: UBC Press.
Raaphorst, N., & Van de Walle, S. (2018). Trust in and by the Public Sector. In R. H. Searle, A.-M. I. Nienaber, & S. B. Sitkin (Eds.), The Routledge Companion to Trust (1st ed., pp. 469–482). London: Routledge.
Radaelli, C. (2000). Policy Transfer in the European Union: Institutional Isomorphism as a Source of Legitimacy. Governance, 13(1), 25–43.
Richardson, J. (2018). British Policy-Making and the Need for a Post-Brexit Policy Style. London, Palgrave.
Van Dooren, W. (2018). Measuring Public Administration: A Feasibility Study for Better Comparative Indicators in the EU. EUPACK project Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union.
Wasserfallen, F. (2018). Policy Diffusion and European Public Policy Research. In E. Ongaro & S. van Thiel (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe (pp. 621–633). London: Palgrave.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cavatorto, S., La Spina, A. (2020). Pressures to Reform and the Impact of the Fiscal Crisis. In: The Politics of Public Administration Reform in Italy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32288-5_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32288-5_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-32287-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-32288-5
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)